Abstract

Citations (16)

Footnotes (183)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id566301. ; Size: 601K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Xenophobia in American Courts

Lawyers and other commentators often remark that American courts, and particularly American juries, are biased against foreign litigants. No research, however, has ever confirmed this suspicion. Indeed, an exhaustive previous empirical study, published seven years ago in the Harvard Law Review, concluded that foreign litigants are successful in litigation more often than their domestic counterparts. In this Article, Professor Kimberly Moore reexamines the issue by reporting the result of research on an original dataset of over 4000 patent cases. The results cast substantial doubt on the hypothesis that foreign and domestic parties are treated identically in jury trials of intellectual property rights. In patent jury cases between domestic and foreign parties, the domestic party won 64% of the time, with the foreign party winning in the remaining 36% of cases. Domestic and foreign parties won at equal rates with judges. Marshaling a range of other evidence, Professor Moore explains that these results are likely to understate the degree of bias, placing a floor but not a ceiling on the impact of xenophobia. The discrepancy between these results and those of the Harvard Law Review study finding xenophilia may be attributable to the complexity of patent law or to problems that Professor Moore identifies in the data on which that study was based.